Abstract
College student notes were analysed with respect to the amount of words copied directly, omitted and added to the teacher’s overheads or PowerPoint slides in order to understand the effect of teacher scaffolds on student generative learning during initial encoding. Scores on quizzes taken at the end of classes from which notes were collected were analysed with respect to the content of student notes and teacher scaffolds. Statistically significant results were found when comparing how much students copied, added and omitted, whether teachers used PowerPoint presentations or overheads, and with respect to the amount of information teachers presented visually. Significant effects also were found on performance quiz items with respect to the amount of information that teachers provided.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ahmed, C. (1998, November). PowerPoint versus traditional overheads: Which is more effective for learning? Paper presented at the Conference of the South Dakota Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, Sioux Falls, SD.
Armbruster, B. B. (2000). Taking notes from lectures. In R. F. Flippo & D. C. Caverly (Eds.), Handbook of college reading and study strategy research (pp. 175–200). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
Bannert, M. (2002). Managing cognitive load: Recent trends in cognitive load theory. Learning and Instruction, 12, 139–146.
Barnett, J. E. (2003, April). Do instructor-provided on-line notes facilitate student learning? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Bartsch, R. A., & Cobern, K. M. (2003). Effectiveness of PowerPoint presentations in lectures. Computers & Education, 41, 77–86.
Beets, S. D., & Lobingier, P. G. (2001). Pedagogical techniques: Student performance and preferences. Journal of Education for Business, 76(4), 231–235.
Butler, J. B., & Martz, R. D. (1996). Multimedia presentations and learning: A laboratory experiment. Issues in Accounting Education, 11, 259–279.
Frey, B. A., & Birnbaum, D. J. (2002). Learners’ perceptions on the value of Powerpoint in lectures (Report). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh, The Centre for Instructional Development and Distance Education (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED467192).
Harpp, D. N., Fenster, A. E., Schwarcz, J. A., Zorychta, E., Goodyear, N., Hsiao, W., et al. (2004). Lecture retrieval via the Web: Better than being there? Journal of Chemical Education, 81, 688–690.
Katayama, A. D. (1997, November). Getting students involved in note taking: Why partial notes benefit learners more than complete notes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Memphis, TN.
Kunkel, K. L. (2004). A research note assessing the benefit of presentation software in two different lecture courses. Teaching Sociology, 32, 188–196.
Larson, T. D. (2001). A comparison of fifth grade children receiving both a traditional and a technology based means of instruction in social studies. Unpublished master’s Thesis, Johnson Bible College, Knoxville, TN.
Nowaczyk, R. H., Santos, L. T., & Patton, C. (1998). Student perception of multimedia in the undergraduate classroom. International Journal of Instructional Media, 25, 367–381.
Parkinson, J., & Hollamby, P. (2003). PowerPoint: Just another slide show or a useful learning aid? School Science Review, 84, 61–68.
Rosenthal, G. T., Soper, B., McKnight, R. R., Barr, J. E., Wilkinson, L. V., Buboltz, W. C., et al. (2002). Multimedia, it’s how you use it: Reflections on a selected computerized teaching technology. In C. D. Maddux, J. Ewing-Taylor, & D. LaMont Johnson (Eds.), Distance education: Issues and concerns (pp. 77–86). New York: Haworth Press.
Shuell, T. J., & Farber, S. L. (2001). Students’ perceptions of technology use in college courses. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24, 119–138.
Szabo, A., & Hastings, N. (2000). Using IT in the undergraduate classroom: Should we replace the blackboard with PowerPoint? Computers & Education, 35, 175–187.
van Merrienböer, J. J. G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kester, L. (2003). Taking the load off a learner’s mind: Instructional design for complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 5–13.
Wittrock, M. C. (1990). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24, 345–376.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Two examples of completely omitted visuals:
Who am I? The Search for Identity During Late Adolescence Taken from an Educational Psychology class on adolescent identity issues |
“Who are you?”, asked the caterpillar. Alice replied rather shyly: “I hardly know, sir, just at present—at least I know who I was when I got up this morning, but I must have changed several times since then.” Lewis Carroll |
Input Price Changes: General results Taken from an Agricultural Economics class on determining the cost-minimising input allocation for a production target |
Suppose that the price of one of the variable inputs changes. The isoquant does NOT change → Marginal rate of substitution does not change. The slope of the isocost line DOES change → Inverse Price ratio changes. The least-cost combination of inputs changes. |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Stefanou, C., Hoffman, L. & Vielee, N. Note-taking in the college classroom as evidence of generative learning. Learning Environ Res 11, 1–17 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-007-9033-0
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-007-9033-0